BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITIONR NO. 3485 OF 2011 M.A. Rahim v. Sk. Ilyas & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 May 2011
- Bench
- NISHITA MHATRE
Outcome
Set aside
The impugned order is set aside
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of half the Court fees paid by him and the same shall be disbursed to him. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.]
Judgment
Cause title
Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. ..... .....
CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 6TH MAY, 2011
ORAL ORDER:-
The Writ Petition has been directed against the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division dated
18.9.2010 by which the Application for refund of Court fees has been dismissed. The petitioner contends that the suit was filed by him against the defendant in 2009 for specific performance of a contract. The parties to the suit settled the dispute on 5.9.2010 before the Lok Adalat and an (2) WP. 3485.2011 award was passed accordingly. On 18.9.2010 an application was filed before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli for refund of the Court fees.
Undisputably, no evidence had been led before the Court though issues have been framed. The petitioner would be entitled to refund of Court fees in the light of the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"). Although the petitioner had claimed the refund of full amount of the Court fees that he has paid, he would be entitled to the relief under section 43 of the Act.
Operative part
The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of half the Court fees paid by him and the same shall be disbursed to him. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
[SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The impugned order is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Fees Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 May 2011. The bench was NISHITA MHATRE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.